Okay, I have CS6 running on an SSD. Initially with CS6 Beta I found I had to run as Administrator. I eventually discovered how to run as a user by going into Preferences / Performance and setting my scratch disk to my hard drive.

So now I have the CS6 release. I deleted CS6 Beta as instructed and followed directions for the install. CS6 works fine except for the bugs that I reported in the beta forum . My problem is now that Bridge insists on running as Administrator. If I try and run it as a user, it comes up and quits immediately. It doesn't make a wisp of difference where I set my Cache file, SSD or hard drive. I can even deal with that, however now I can't start Bridge from Photoshop! I click on File / Browse in Bridge and nothing happens. If I start Bridge then go to Photoshop and click on File / Browse in Bridge, still nothing happens. I have to manually switch to the Bridge window.

Not a computer geek, but the Faulting Module is where your OS says the problem lies.

Search you computer to see if MMXCore.88X is there or should be there and is not. What does it mean that MMXCore.88X is unloaded for instance?

Do a web serarch for MMXCore.88X and see if you come up with something that fits.

Thanks Curt and I may follow up on your suggestions, however at this point the problem does seem to be one of compatibility that Adobe should be dealing with. I do wish we could hear from someone from Adobe.

Out of curiosity, is it possible you have connected Photoshop CS6 with plug-ins from a prior version?

This can happen by inadvertently copying plug-ins from an older Photoshop, or defining an Extra Plug-ins Folder setting that points back to the plug-ins area under an older version of Photoshop.

-Noel

Noel, I started with PS 7 then CS5. 7 was deleted before the upgrade to CS6. CS5 still resides as it has the 3D function. The only plug-ins I've added to Photoshop are from Topaz Labs and I have Photoshop working properly.

I would like to use the SSD for a PS scratch disk as well, but it won't work so far.

A SSD has a certain life for write acts. It is suggested by many that you use the SSD for read functions primairly (like were the programs are) rather than as a scratch disk where there are lots of read/write cycles.

A SSD has a certain life for write acts. It is suggested by many that you use the SSD for read functions primairly (like were the programs are) rather than as a scratch disk where there are lots of read/write cycles.

Hi Curt,

I'm aware of this suggestion. However, this would mean avoiding it for all uses with significant write loads - such as using it for the LR catalog and previews - as well.

That is where I hope to gain some additional performance though. Faster boot and load times are nice, but an increase in performance using the program is worth much more to me than cutting the load time in half.

Therefore I "overbought" the SSD for my needs and use generous overprovisioning. And when I run it into the ground eventually, then so be it. I bought it for performance, not longevity.

SSD has a certain life for write acts. It is suggested by many that you use the SSD for read functions primairly (like were the programs are) rather than as a scratch disk where there are lots of read/write cycles.

That information is dated, and happily no longer true.

Modern SSDs with SandForce controllers do wear-leveling. I just built an SSD array for my workstation that delivers over 1.5 gigabytes/second throughput and I use it for everything - Photoshop scratch, TEMP, all Windows features.

I did some math and projected the lifespan to well over 10 years. Longer than an electromechanical drive would last.

While the SandForce-controlled drives have been around for a little longer than that, these brilliant controllers really have only *just* changed the landscape and pushed SSD over into the mainstream for computer storage. You don't even have to worry about whether the OS supports TRIM any more, because the controller's background maintenance (often called "garbage collection") just deals with it - all you need to do is just plug in the drive and use it. Even in a RAID array.

That's not to say the increased SSD speed can be handled perfectly by every system, some folks do have problems with them. But then some folks also have problems when they plug in another electromechanical hard drive.

I kind of remember a post from someone (possibly gswetsky) in which they were doing some exceptional stuff to make parts of their system connect to a different drive for certain things (e.g., using a file system junction to move C:\Users elsewhere). While that sort of thing really should work, the best approach is to just overprovision the system with way more than enough storage than is needed on drive C: and just use it normally.

I think the Adobe people verified a crash problem when certain folders were inaccessible, but that certainly wouldn't have gotten into the CS6 release code yet, since the release code was built on March 15. I imagine things are going to get better with the 13.0.1 update, whenever that comes out.

Having the same problem here too after upgrade from CS5 Extended to CS6 Extended. I did not install the Beta version. Uninstalled CS5 first and did clean install of CS6. Bridge starts fine but crashes out as soon as the main window appears. Photoshop itself is fine. CS6 package installed on SSD and using internal hard drive as a scratch disk. Resent paying out for the best package in the business and then having to ensure I run as Administrator just to use it.

Simon, since you commented in the Bridge Forum on this same problem you should have read the following quote - Adobe is working on it.

"Hi David,

Can Bridge work if you run it as administrator? If yes, will it generate a temp file named like “Photoshop Tempxxxxxx” under the root of C drive when Bridge launch? If still yes, it should be a same issue as what others encountered. And we are investigating this issue now.

First off, I said root folders of all drives, that would include any other than drive C: that you might have.

And you need to understand that Windows UAC ensures you're normally running without Administrator level privileges. That's why your username specifically needs to get the Full Control permissions to the root folders.

To work around this problem, the permissions need to be set only on the root folder. Setting Full Control on all folders essentially thwarts almost all of what UAC does to protect you, so if you're going to do that you might as well just turn UAC all the way off.

For what it's worth, I've long since abandoned the stupidity of UAC myself. But I'm a software engineer and know exactly what that means, and what practices to follow to ensure I don't get malware infections.

Folks, at this point, I don't see the purpose of having us running through hoops trying to fix this bug. CS5 worked fine and CS6 is broken.

I've reported this problem threetimes due to Adobe indiscriminately making sections of the forum read-only and deleting the CS6 Beta forum. Others have reported it as well. Initially the problem was with Photoshop CS6 as well as Bridge CS6, but I've reported a workaround for Photoshop. Unfortunately, that workaround is not useable in Bridge.

The problem seems to be particularly affecting those who are using SSD's. In the problem forum I've reported the bug complete with the report that Windows generated in the log when I tried to start Bridge.

I feel certain at this point that we finally have Adobe's attention and it's only a matter of time until it's fixed. One question is does Adobe want to release an upgrade each and every time a bug is discovered and repaired or will they wait until they have several others fixed and then release an update? I've reported one other bug with the software so far and have noticed several annoyances.

All I can say is it seems the CS6 Beta was released totally as a marketing ploy and not at all to allow us to work with it and report bugs. If that is the case, then I'm thoroughly disappointed with Adobe. Following the release of the "Beta", the feedback in the forums should have been evaluated and fixes made before the software was released to the public. Deleting the forum was entirely unprofessional!

I think the point of trying to help people find workarounds is that no one here save for the Adobe folks know when they're likely to release that fix.

gswetsky wrote:

it seems the CS6 Beta was released totally as a marketing ploy and not at all to allow us to work with it and report bugs.

When was the Photoshop CS6 beta first made available? The date I recall is March 22, 2012, and that software was actually built from sources on March 5, near as I can tell.

For reference, note the build dates on the files installed as part of the Photoshop CS6 release:

Software preparation for release is normally a pipeline, with engineers working on code, build teams building code into executables and installers, system testers testing builds, beta testers testing potential releases, and customers downloading released code all simultaneously.

I suspect Adobe was expecting to be able to release the Photoshop CS6 they already had built by the time the beta test started, unless any real "show stopper" bugs were found. Bottom line I think is that we can assume none of the customer-reported bugs during the public beta were gauged "show stoppers". I'm pretty sure not everyone sees the crash you're seeing.

There's always pressure to get a release out, even if it's not perfect, as long as some customers can derive value from it... Proceeds from sales can keep the lights on at the factory while the first update is prepared.

We only hope that update makes everything better without making anything worse.

All I can say is it seems the CS6 Beta was released totally as a marketing ploy and not at all to allow us to work with it and report bugs. If that is the case, then I'm thoroughly disappointed with Adobe. Following the release of the "Beta", the feedback in the forums should have been evaluated and fixes made before the software was released to the public. Deleting the forum was entirely unprofessional!

Gerry

I have to agree. I'm aware that there are significant lead times involved, for production of the discs, shipping etc. so I understand that the results of the public beta could not have been included in the shipped version. However, a "Zero-Day" Patch, like it was done with the release of ACR 7.1 RC, would have been a nice touch.

They way things stand, I also wonder if the propose of the beta really was to gather feedback.

There's always pressure to get a release out, even if it's not perfect, as long as some customers can derive value from it.

Another company I deal with is Logos in Bellingham, WA. They are number one in the world in Bible software. Maybe they're smaller than Adobe, but definitely not a mom and pop software company.

Logos has a forum where they work with their users. You almost always know what's going on. Pre-release software is available to those who wish to search for bugs and when they are found, they are posted to the forum. Logos talks to their customers! Bug laden software is not released to customers. I know Adobe people will occasionally post to the forums, but are apparently not urged to do so. When we need customer assistance or technical support, we end up speaking with people in third world countries with horrid accents, who have never seen ths software, but merely repeat what is displayed in front of them on a monitor.

For Adobe, this is advantageous as it keeps costs down. It is how they can afford to sell the upgrade to CS6 Extended for only $399.

I suppose it's possible that UAC is blocking root access to drive C:\ regardless of whether permissions are granted. I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to do something like that.

It's why I've long since deconfigured UAC. I don't need more magic from my OS to protect my system from me. I need it to work.

-Noel

While that is probably true, I have used it for years now and never had problems. Whether it is actually increasing security or is more of a placebo effect, I don't know. But I have found it to be well behaved and not causing issues in all the years with different PC configurations and lots and lots of different programs. Therefore I'm not sure why CS6 needs special treatment.

Also: I'm no programmer, but isn't the writing of Temp files in root directories of anything considered bad form, no matter what? It just recently learned that Adobe was leaving all those weird files on my picture drive (where I never authorized it).